G Brown
Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK
mdfenton wrote:
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."
If Only....
The camera would have to do all the work and you would still insist on having a Raw version.
The sliders on photoshop would have to have brakes and some 16 year old would find a solution to them
Gene51 wrote:
Getting it right in the camera means different things to different people. Would you consider the contact print of the image in the link getting it right in the camera? Most of the GIRIC crowd would dismiss this image as worthless.
He didn't "fix" the image in post processing - he obviously got it right in the camera in order to extract all the tonal values he needed to create the iconic work of art.
http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nmIn digital, getting it right means recording all the data necessary to produce the image you envisioned. It does not mean letting the camera produce a pretty jpeg. Often the two are one in the same. But just as often if not more so, an image, recorded as a raw file, will look underexposed, faded, etc. But it will contain all the data needed. Of primary importance would be the highlights, which are not overexposed.
Getting it right in the camera means different thi... (
show quote)
Gene,
thank you for the link and thank you for the time you devote to UHH. I always learn something and look forward to what you have to say.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
DaveyDitzer wrote:
Gene,
thank you for the link and thank you for the time you devote to UHH. I always learn something and look forward to what you have to say.
Just hope the stuff I post is useful - :)
davidrb
Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel
mdfenton wrote:
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."
Anything done in PP diminishes an image's quality.
davidrb
Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel
Gene51 wrote:
You are confused.
And you are mistaken when you refute the engineers who built the digital system.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
davidrb wrote:
And you are mistaken when you refute the engineers who built the digital system.
David, with all due respect, your comment reflects a total lack of understanding of how post processing works and what it can do to bring out the best in an image, be it a creative approach or just a high-quality, no compromise documentary-style image. No camera is capable of that. If they were, then Adobe and the entire photo editing industry would be out of business. I have NEVER seen an unedited image, other than for forensic or photojournalistic, or possibly educational use, that was not post processed - and I have been a photographer for 49 years, and my comments extend back to silver emulsion wet processing.
So if you truly understand the "process" of photography, then you will accept that the camera is there to capture and the photographer is there to create. Camera is just a tool. Otherwise my cat should be able to take stunning images.
No mistake or refuting on my part - just a wider perspective.
I think the goal, for me, is to do as little PP as possible. However I realize that a little tweaking (or sometimes a lot!) is necessary to get the best from myself, the camera, and the image file. Just because extensive PP is required, it doesn't mean the photographer made a "mistake" during the exposure process. It may mean that he/she was thoughtful & intentional during this first part of the process and made decisions knowing what was necessary to get as close to what they "saw" that intrigued them enough to stop and create.
I've yet to see an image from a GIRITC group that couldn't use some improvement. I'm still waitingÂ….
WWAS?
"What Would Ansel Say?"
sinatraman
Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant
mdfenton wrote:
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."
get it right in the camera, then enhance and create something awesome in Photoshop!
David,
From a technical viewpoint (rather than an aesthetic one) you are correct. Gene's processed photo does have more noise than the unprocessed one. But if given the choice of an underexposed drab picture or a vibrantly exposed exciting picture with a bit more noise, I have to pick the latter. If you showed the two pics to a thousand people, most would think the first pretty drab, and the second would elict a lot of wows.
I sort of rankle at people who say you should get it right in the camera because that doesn't consider the weather, available light and shadows, or even the ability of the camera. Where I live in NJ, it's overcast 80% of the time, and one of my cameras (the Nikon 1 J1) has terrible low light performance, and is very noisy above iso 400. When I see a good deal on ebay I'll probably pick up a used D600. But for now, getting it right in the camera is generally not an option. And if that D600 winds up with oil spots on the sensor between cleanings, that are visible on my pics, I'll be removing them with Photoshop, the same way I have to use Photoshop now to remove dust specs from any film slides I scan.
Sure there are times when I do get it right in the camera, but I don't think of that as having done something better than when I need to post process a pic. It's more like an accident of light and subject coming together perfectly.
Bob
davidrb wrote:
Anything done in PP diminishes an image's quality.
I spent twenty five years shooting film, Kodachrome. And as you may know, shooting slides is tough. Whatever you get is all you're going to get. So I had to learn to create the effects I wanted or needed right in the camera because when that film came back there was no way to fix it.
Switching to digital later I discovered quickly that many of the effects I struggled to create in the camera I could have in the computer with the click of a mouse. And of course there was that instant opportunity to check my shots on the LCD too. About a year into this new world I bought a scanner to digitize my slides.
To my absolute horror, as I began to scan my slides I discovered that my images were far superior as slides than the digital images I was creating today. Well, that was not acceptable.
From that day on I re-adopted that idea of getting it right in the camera. It was a bit of a bother but I did it any way and before long my images were better than any I had done in the past.
Later I also learned some new techniques like panoramas and focus stacking where you are dependent on the computer and the software to finish the job. So for those I didn't try to get it all right in the camera since that's not were the action is in that case.
Today I keep improving and surprising myself as I master ever more techniques within the camera. This saves me a lot of time in post processing, and it gets me awesome images.
So ... with the exception of new techniques like HDR, panoramas, focus stacking I agree that it's vital that we need to get it right in the camera. In fact that's important for those new techniques too. If you bugger up one or two of the pictures the resulting product from the computer won't come out right either.
Getting it right in the camera also makes us faster in responding to opportunities and it results in amazing images.
Bugfan,
I'm curious about one thing. When you don't get it right in the camera do you delete the shot or try to improve it in post processing? I'm pretty sure no one tries to get it wrong in the camera. The question is, when that happens, what do you do with the shot (when the opportunity, light, bird, etc. is gone for the day and can't be re-shot)?
Bob
Bugfan wrote:
I spent twenty five years shooting film, Kodachrome. And as you may know, shooting slides is tough. Whatever you get is all you're going to get. So I had to learn to create the effects I wanted or needed right in the camera because when that film came back there was no way to fix it.
Switching to digital later I discovered quickly that many of the effects I struggled to create in the camera I could have in the computer with the click of a mouse. And of course there was that instant opportunity to check my shots on the LCD too. About a year into this new world I bought a scanner to digitize my slides.
To my absolute horror, as I began to scan my slides I discovered that my images were far superior as slides than the digital images I was creating today. Well, that was not acceptable.
From that day on I re-adopted that idea of getting it right in the camera. It was a bit of a bother but I did it any way and before long my images were better than any I had done in the past.
Later I also learned some new techniques like panoramas and focus stacking where you are dependent on the computer and the software to finish the job. So for those I didn't try to get it all right in the camera since that's not were the action is in that case.
Today I keep improving and surprising myself as I master ever more techniques within the camera. This saves me a lot of time in post processing, and it gets me awesome images.
So ... with the exception of new techniques like HDR, panoramas, focus stacking I agree that it's vital that we need to get it right in the camera. In fact that's important for those new techniques too. If you bugger up one or two of the pictures the resulting product from the computer won't come out right either.
Getting it right in the camera also makes us faster in responding to opportunities and it results in amazing images.
I spent twenty five years shooting film, Kodachrom... (
show quote)
Bobspez wrote:
David,
From a technical viewpoint (rather than an aesthetic one) you are correct. Gene's processed photo does have more noise than the unprocessed one. But if given the choice of an underexposed drab picture or a vibrantly exposed exciting picture with a bit more noise, I have to pick the latter. If you showed the two pics to a thousand people, most would think the first pretty drab, and the second would elict a lot of wows.
I sort of rankle at people who say you should get it right in the camera because that doesn't consider the weather, available light and shadows, or even the ability of the camera. Where I live in NJ, it's overcast 80% of the time, and one of my cameras (the Nikon 1 J1) has terrible low light performance, and is very noisy above iso 400. When I see a good deal on ebay I'll probably pick up a used D600. But for now, getting it right in the camera is generally not an option. And if that D600 winds up with oil spots on the sensor between cleanings, that are visible on my pics, I'll be removing them with Photoshop, the same way I have to use Photoshop now to remove dust specs from any film slides I scan.
Sure there are times when I do get it right in the camera, but I don't think of that as having done something better than when I need to post process a pic. It's more like an accident of light and subject coming together perfectly.
Bob
David, br From a technical viewpoint (rather than ... (
show quote)
It would have been possible to get the bridge shot right in the camera. But then he would have to wait for better weather, light up the bridge etc. In this case it is so much easier and faster to get it right in post processing.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.